 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hellmann v. Union School District8/23/2005
erroneously relies on a single Board policy that neither commands nor forbids action. Section 168.114.1(4) provides, in pertinent part that, " n indefinite contract with a permanent teacher shall not be terminated by the board of education of a school district except for... illful or persistent violation of, or failure to obey, the school laws of the state or the published regulations of the board of education of the school district employing him." Cases construing Section 116.114.1(4) have established that "the statute does not allow termination on the basis of a regulation which neither forbids nor commands action" because one can neither violate nor fail to obey such a regulation. See Carter County School District, R-1 v. Palmer , 582 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo.App.S.D. 1979).
In her brief, Ms. Hellmann first asserts that the Board's decision cites only to Board Policy IGBA which provides, "the district's programs and services available to meet the needs of students with disabilities will be in accordance with applicable federal and state laws governing disability discrimination and special education services including State and Local Plans for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA)." Ms. Hellmann contends, in essence that this policy is merely a descriptive recommendation, and a teacher would not be capable of disobeying it.
Given the content of Board Policy IGBA, Ms. Hellmann's assertion that the Board's decision implicates only Board Policy IGBA is inaccurate. Board Policy IGBA incorporates by reference federal and state laws governing special education services. The evidence in the record clearly establishes that the District thoroughly reviewed with Ms. Hellmann what paperwork the applicable state and federal laws required and detailed both in the notice of deficiencies and Statement of Charges in what respects Ms. Hellmann was deficient with respect to the paperwork mandated by state and federal education laws.
Having found that the Board's decision adequately references the school laws of the State of Missouri, o ur inquiry turns to whether the record supports the Board's finding that Ms. Hellmann's alleged violation of these state school laws was persistent or willful. As previously stated, Section 168.114.1 (4) requires that a permanent teacher cannot be terminated absent a finding that the teacher's violation(s) were persistent or willful. Loeffelman v. Board of Education of the Crystal City School District, 134 S.W.3d 637, 645 (Mo.App.E.D. 2004). W illfulness is defined as an act " done deliberately; not accidental or without purpose; intentional." Id. Notably, willfulness is seldom directly proved. Burgess v. Ferguson Reorganized School District R-2, 820 S.W.2d at 651, 656 (Mo.App.E.D.1991).
The linchpin in our inquiry is whether Ms. Hellmann had knowledge of the state school laws she is alleged to have violated. Review of the record and the transcript reveal s agreement among the parties that Ms. Hellmann is an experienced teacher, certified in special education, a highly regulated field. Moreover, Ms. Hellmann admitted that she was aware of the policies and state laws governing special education and that Ms. Dintelman had reviewed with her the State of Missouri's special education "Standards and Indicators." Additionally, evidence indicated that the "Rules and Regulations of the Board" were incorporated by reference as if fully set out into Ms. Hellmann's permanent teaching contract.
Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the conclusion that d espite her years of experience as a special education teacher, her knowledge of Board policy and her one-on-one review of Missouri special education policies with her superv
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|